Our justly celebrated Ridley, in his rejection of Roman Catholic excesses, had been led to take a different view, and no less clearly to connect the grace communicated in the Eucharist with the received symbols. His influence, there is reason to believe, had predominated in the first reformation of the Liturgy; inasmuch as in every part of the Communion Service, the idea of a blessing, strictly through the consecrated elements, is impressively conveyed. But by the advice of Bucer, the first service, after a year or two, was re-modified; and the idea of combination of grace with the symbols, had not, in the former service, been more carefully intimated, than it appeared afterward to be studiously excluded. 1

In this alteration Ridley obviously could

1 And yet, after all, the exclusion was not complete. Probably Cranmer did not wish to carry his changes as far as would have been necessary for this purpose. The original doctrine, therefore still remained, by the most obvious implication, in the commencing sentences of the exhortation, "Dearly beloved in the Lord," &c. in which Ridley's view of the Holy Eucharist appears to be conveyed, if not as expressly, yet as substantially, and with as much simple sublimity, as it could be in human language.

not concur, though conscientious prudence restrained him from actual opposition. Most probably it was with particular reference to this very matter that he acknowledged, in a letter to a former chaplain, written during his confinement, that, in the recent times, it "had "chanced him to mislike some things; for" he adds, "sudden changes without substantial "and necessary cause, and the heady setting "forth of extremities I did never love." 2 Besides, in the very last period of his life, he declared his own belief, that in the Eucharist" what was before common bread, is now "made a lively representation of Christ's

66

body; and that it is not only a figure, "but effectuously representeth his body— "such a sacramental mutation," he says, " I grant to be in the bread and wine; which, truly, is no small change; but such a change, as no mortal man can make, but only the omnipotency of Christ's word." 3

66

66

66

But it is remarkable, that notwithstanding the change in the Communion Service, those

2 Ridley's Life of Ridley, p. 578.

3 Wordsworth, vol. iii. p. 237.-Ridley's Life of Ridley, p. 20.

passages of the lately formed Articles, in which the old doctrine was substantially conveyed, still remained unaltered. Undoubtedly it would have been expunged in every instance, had divine Providence allowed time for the accomplishment of all that was then meditated. But whatever were the intentions of Cranmer, they were speedily made abortive, by the death of Edward VI.

It must be observed, however, that the changes in the Communion Service, made at the suggestion of Bucer, implied the omission of the former doctrine, rather than the substitution of an opposite doctrine in its stead. The only direct intimation of Bucer's theory was given in the altered form of delivering the symbols. In the first English Service, the two commencing sentences of the present forms stood alone; in the altered service, the two present latter sentences stood alone, as substitutes for the two former. On the accession of Elizabeth, however, the two original sentences were restored, but prefixed to the two latter, as we still have them. Thus, in a certain degree, the doctrine of Ridley was again recognized, inasmuch as it is clearly intimated in the replaced words,

which must have been restored for the very sake of that intimation; while the subjoined words, which conveyed an opposite sense, as substitutes, cannot be thus understood, when merely an addition. They express a truth, but not the whole truth. When they stood as substitutes, they appeared to convey the only true notion, and, especially to exclude that idea, which the former words had suggested.

This re-instatement of the significant words, which for so many ages had been used in the Christian Church, had (together with the unaltered Articles already adverted to,) a stronger influence on the minds of the succeeding English Clergy, in favour of Ridley's doctrine, than its studied omission in the rest of the Communion Service could have against it. Various evidences of this fact might be adduced; but the most conclusive proof is afforded by the Prayer Book for the Scottish Church, in the year 1637. In the Communion Service of that formulary, the first Prayer Book of King Edward was substantially followed, and Ridley's doctrine in consequence avowedly maintained. Had that measure succeeded in Scotland, there can be

The

little doubt, that a like recurrence to the earlier principles of our Reformation would have taken place in England. But every such project was frustrated, and the entire design defeated, by the civil war which so speedily ensued. The Scottish Service Book, however, had its eventual use, in affording material guidance to the revisers of the English Prayer Book after the Restoration. object then, evidently was, to re-infuse the spirit of Ridley's doctrine into the Communion Service. But political reasons required this purpose to be effected, not avowedly, but by significant intimations; that is, by Rubrics, enjoining certain things to be done, which had not been directed in the un-revised form, but which being now deliberately introduced after so long an omission, had a far greater force, than if they had remained from the beginning; while, on an attentive, and still more, on a comparative examination of them, their meaning will appear irresistible. Thus, without adding one word to the service itself, (a restraint which we may believe they would gladly not have felt; as their following the Scottish Prayer Book so much, bespeaks a wish to have followed it still more completely,) the revisers effected